Comments for Global Warming Skeptics. Who Are These Madmen? »
Posted By btatman22 6 months, 2 weeks ago in Political News(Op-Ed) As far as the liberal elites in America are concerned, the debate on global warming is over. They won. Not so fast. There are plenty of credible scientists on both sides of the debate. We are going to highlight some of the scientists who are skeptical of either the existence of global warming, or that mankind is contributing to the warming process (if it exists).
Read Full Story at freshconservative.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 153
-
55%
engineer6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Most earth scientists believe humans cause of global warming, according to survey
Reply
97 percent of climatologists canvassed believe humans play a role
Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.g...-
73%
Klarissa6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
CNN) -- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists.
Reply
However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility. -
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned2 Replies
-
75%
Endoscopy6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Then please tell us why Mars and the Moon are tracking the average temperature of the earth. Are we shipping these hydrocarbons there to cause this? Why do people ignore this basic fact.
Reply
In fact the average temperature of earth flattened and had a slight fall the last decade. Something else the warmer fanatics ignore or deny.-
100%
bigG6 months, 2 weeks ago
-
prophyporcritesComment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned2 Replies
-
-
100%
ForrestPhelps6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To: Endoscopy
Reply
The universe is filled with meaningless coincidence.
For many years, if a old (prior to the merger with the AFL) NFL team won the Super Bowl, that would indicate a bullish market, but an old AFL team winning would mean the market would decline. Between 1967 and 1997, the Super Bowl Indicator (SBI) was correct 28 out of 31 times.
Would you like to argue that the two are related?-
0%
Endoscopy6 months, 2 weeks ago
-
100%
Newenglander6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't think you are qualified to make that statement. I am fairly certain that you have not done an in depth study of global warming causation. I am also fairly certain that you received your information from someone other than a climatologist. I might want to also mention that we do not have an extensive history of exoplanet temperature fluctuation as opposed to centuries of recorded temps here on Earth. For you to make such a blanket statement about no greenhouse effect is absurd and reflects your extreme lack of intellect.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
79%
Klarissa6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The Integrated Ocean Drilling Program drillship JOIDES Resolution has returned to Honolulu after a two-month voyage to chart the detailed climate history of the Earth. This was the first of two voyages of the ‘Pacific Equatorial Age Transect’ project, and the first international scientific drilling expedition since the JOIDES Resolution underwent a multi-year, more than $100-million transformation into a 21st century floating science laboratory.
Reply
Onboard were 29 scientists from seven nations, 25 technicians, and an international crew of 66.
The scientists are using mud and rocks from far below the equatorial Pacific Ocean floor to uncover details about the climate history on Earth. The sediment layers recovered from six drilling locations act like pages from a book, and record inch-by-inch Earth’s climate history.
The two-month expedition succeeded in obtaining records ranging from the present to the warmest sustained ‘greenhouse’ period on Earth around 53 million years ago.
At that time, alligators lived as far north as the Arctic, and palm trees grew in the Rocky Mountains.
Reconstructions have shown that there were no significant polar ice caps, and greenhouse gas concentrations were several times higher than today.
The super-greenhouse early Eocene was followed by gradual cooling and the sudden buildup of major ice caps on Antarctica around 34 million years ago, leaving its mark in the equatorial sediment cores that the scientists are bringing back to Hawaii.
The voyage discovered the effect of large-scale climatic changes on the oceans of the past.
53 million years ago, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was much higher than today, and made the ocean much more acidic, such that only little carbonate is preserved in sediments recovered from those times. In contrast, during the buildup of ice on Antarctica, the ocean became less acidic very rapidly, and more carbonate was suddenly preserved in the deep ocean. The transition from warm to cool climates took place in less than 100,000 years – well within the time span that humans have been living on our planet." -
67%
Klarissa6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Evidence for early hunters beneath the Great Lakes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, June 8, 2009
Reply
"The researchers located what they believe to be caribou-hunting structures and camps used by the early hunters of the period.
"This is the first time we've identified structures like these on the lake bottom," said John O'Shea, curator of Great Lakes Archaeology in the Museum of Anthropology and professor in the Department of Anthropology.
"Scientifically, it's important because the entire ancient landscape has been preserved and has not been modified by farming, or modern development. That has implications for ecology, archaeology and environmental modeling."
"The combination of these state-of-the art tools have made these underwater archeological investigations possible," Meadows said. "Without any one of these advanced tools, this discovery would not have happened."
Archaeologist will begin examining these areas this summer.
The Paleo-Indian and early Archaic periods are poorly known in the Great Lakes region because most of their sites are thought to have been lost beneath the lakes.
Yet they are also times of major shifts in culture and the environment.
The research is funded by the National Science Foundation. -
69%
btatman226 months, 2 weeks ago
-
64%
ForrestPhelps6 months, 2 weeks ago
-
-
67%
ForrestPhelps6 months, 2 weeks ago
-
-
-
100%
buckncindykill6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
During both Winter Over and Summer Support researchers from all over the world and universities converge on Mcmurdo to, among other things; conduct ozone research.
Reply
These people are considered some of the most prestigious in their respective fields. MIT, UCLA, Oxford, University of Merseille, etc.
During the visit, their research is conducted via helicopter, weather permitting, at heights deemed most conducive for ozone detection. (Think of the atmosphere in terms of thickness. Warmer air is thicker and denser than cold air. I.E., ozone is found at higher heights over the equator than at the poles; 70,000 ft and higher (equator), as low as the surface at the poles!)
During balloon launches, we will retrieve radiosonde data; humidity, temperature, pressure, et al., to analyse atmospheric composition. Unequivocal proof shows that ozone occurs almost consistently between the surface and around 500 ft at the poles.
These researchers, however, most conservatively would fly at constant levels around 1000 ft or higher from coastal regions across the continent to the pole and back. Now, 1000 ft might be fine along the coast, but as you fly inland, flight level must be adjusted to "detect" ozone. Please explain why they flew at constant flight levels of 1000 ft. We even briefed them on this phenomenon, explaining the idiosyncrasies of polar atmospheric composition. After all, we have meteorologists that have forecasted polar weather for several years on end. Experts, if you will on Antarctic weather.
However, they would not accept our data. None of it! Why? Because it was not university sanctioned research.
Now I ask you in the name of science; shouldn't all data, evidence, etc., be explored to find the truth?
And by the way, 4 people negged my original comment because they are not interested in exploring for the truth. Not interested in evidence that may shed light on controversial topics. I am all about science, but if certain truths exist that don't fit a particular mold; people will rely on pseudo-science to set forth their own reality.-
100%
ForrestPhelps6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To: buckncindykill
Reply
First, thanks both for talking and for being courteous. I will endeavor to extend the same courtesy to you.
My understanding of ozone, the ozone layer, and the ozone hole doesn't seem to match up with much of your personal experience. I always thought that the ozone layer was/is a layer in the stratosphere, just above the troposphere, at a range generally above 32,000 feet, and generally not above 165,000 feet.
I thought that most measurements of ozone were achieved via spectroscopy on the ground, or satellite data. I would love to hear what instruments you were using, what was collected, how it was analyzed, etc.
*****************
Now, as to data. In the name of science, decidedly, no, not all data should be considered. Data collection is a tricky business, in my experience, and I am loath to accept data from other sources. If forced to, I almost always insist upon independent duplication by someone whose methodology is familiar to me, either because I trained them, or because of previous working experience. So no, I don't believe all data should be explored to find the truth.
*******************
Also, I would ask you how you know those four people who negged your comment "are not interested in exploring for the truth"? A logical person with some modicum of reasoning ability, could hypothesize that even if all four sent you private messages saying that was indeed the reason they negged your comment, at least one of them could be lying.
*********************
Anyhow, thanks for the discussion. I'll be going to bed soon, so I'll pick this up sometime after another six hours or so have elapsed. Have a good night. -
100%
beavith16 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
i haven't been there, so i'm just working with my understanding of the problem.
Reply
based on atmospheric pressure alone, ground level ozone is a photochemical product of combustion and NOX.
the ozone hole at altitude is mechanistically related to NOX on ice particles catalyzing O3 destruction by the photochemical conversion of Cl and Br bearing GHGs to free radical halogens causing a cascaded destruction of O3.
i used to use about 100 tons per year of CH3CCl3 that has a short atmospheric lifetime (couple years) that when the Montreal Protocol kicked in Antarctic concentrations plunged (along with CCl4) and the contribution from those two chemicals declined rapidly. the current impact is from long lived fluorine containing Cl and Br based freon-style compounds.
i realize that this is propeller, and that everyone is wrong, especially conservatives, but am i somehow mistaken? can you provide cites? -
-
-
-
-
-
57%
ForrestPhelps6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To: btatman22:
Reply
Look, you've got a website. Congratulations. I read about it in your profile. You know, the profile where you write:
"highlights conservative movements and exposes liberal shenanigans."
That makes it sound as if there are no conservative shenanigans. So how can one assume anything about your website except that it is nothing but a place for you to feed your self-righteousness?
Then, there was the post where you wrote: "It's only a hobby though, and I do appreciate you viewing my articles. It helps when the advertisers come knocking. Keep up the good work."
So again, if you want me to consider your words/opinions/facts or anything you want to provide AS A SERVICE to the users of Propeller, then use a website that doesn't get money for you. Then I'll discuss.
-
-
-
86%
kobzikov6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There is ZERO evidence in the article. You've got no peer-reviewed research to support your inanity.
Reply
And what concerns your attempts at quote-mining then you can't even do that right.
For example,
you tell us that Dr. Joanne Simpson, who isn't even an expert in climatology she was a meteorological scientist for NASA, said, "“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization, nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly. As a scientist I remain skeptical.”
But you provide no source to support the claim when what she said was,
"What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical..."
http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rai...
You tell us about Dr. Eduardo Tonni who is quoted in press release by Direct Democracy Party of New Zealand [DDP], which claims that the source for the quote is LaRouche's Australian partner website.
You even misquote DeSmogBlog's entry on Kiminori Itoh, which states, quote
"It appears, Dr. Itoh's statement in the 2008 U.S. Senate Minority Report outlining the 650 global warming dissenters within the scientific community, was not exactly his. The statement is an amalgomation of the title of the preface ("The Worst Scientific Scandal In History") to his book and a statement given by Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu ("When people know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists""
http://www.desmogblog.com/kiminori-itoh
What you are doing is dishonest. You want a debate then produce published peer-reviewed research to support your beliefs on global warming. Until then, I don't see any reason to take you more seriously then other dispensers and purveyors of intellectual quackery such as creationists.-
Grumpy63528Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned2 Replies
-
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned2 Replies
-
-
-
78%
canadianrancher576 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I wonder at times why there are so many deniers that maybe the world is just warming back up to where is is supposed to in a cycle that sees global warnming and cooling over long periods of time.
Reply
Maybe my logic is way off on this but we seem to be really concrened about glaciers retreating at a faster rate and also the shrinking of the ice shelves at also a faster rate, to me I see the glaciers,ice shelves and even the ocean as a moderating factor to keep the earth cool but they have been reatreating for a very long time and as they grow smaller there effect as a cooling influence grows less and this in turn results in even faster melting.
I hope that made sense.-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
40%
oldslowjim6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There is an article by a marine scientist, I'll have to find it again, but basically says the same thing. He doubts that man-made CO2 is the reason for warming, and says it is probably a natural cycle.
Reply
The other point he stresses is that our politicians are "guessing" (again, like the unemployment rate!) what the cause is. If they have guessed wrong, we will have spent trillions of dollars and still will not have done any mitigation. We will need to spend trillions more mitigating the effects (like purchasing up shore lines from current residents) if the warming is not man-made..
Talk about taking risks.
-
-
71%
Klarissa6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A blog comment:
Reply
"If they could predict the weather two days out with 99+% accuracy, I might think about believing their models for the next decade (but certainly not for a century out).
From what I’ve been able to read, none of the models, when run against known measured past data, converge with what today’s weather/climate is.
But as long as the grants keep a-comin’. it’s worth your tax dollars to tweak the models, never you mind reality. "-
0%
oldslowjim6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
None of the models can forecast backwards accurately either. That is, put the data in backwards, the computer doesn't care, and see if it can tell you what actually occurred. From what I have seen, none of them will do this. This means the models must be continually manipulated to "give an answer". The manipulations are really what is in question.
Reply
-
-
73%
Klarissa6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Another article:http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view=...
Reply
A scientist whose reservations about "global warming" have been officially endorsed by tens of thousands of other scientists is accusing the U.N. of using "mob rule" to generate fear-mongering climate change reports intended to scare national leaders into submitting to its worldwide taxation schemes.
"Science has always progressed on the basis of observations, experiments, and thoughts published by individual scientists and sometimes pairs or small groups of scientific coworkers," Art Robinson, a research professor of chemistry and co-founder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, said in a recent column in Human Events.
Except at the U.N., he said.
Robinson's concern over the political manipulation of science earlier led him to launch the Petition Project, a compilation of more than 31,000 scientists – with more names arriving daily – who have voluntarily signed their names to the following statement:
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
He said the scientific process begins with the results of individuals' work and their distribution of their ideas.
"A few of these published articles are especially valuable; a greater number, while not remarkable, provide relative mundane studies that add to the infrastructure of science; many are not useful at all; and some are completely wrong. As individual scientists read these articles, they use their own wisdom, knowledge, and judgment to separate new information that they find valuable from information that they find of no use," Robinson said. Eventually, the good, accurate and valuable information is advanced.
In real science, however, "truths are never determined through such meetings; unsolved scientific questions are never resolved by such meetings; and scientific articles are never published unless every putative or listed author has personally approved every word of the publication," Robinson said. "Scientific truth is never decided by meetings organized to decide which ideas are true and which are false." -
75%
StevieGee6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ok, so the causes, or even the existence of, global warming is subject to debate. I wonder how many of these scientists would acknowledge that air pollution is a good thing. The big polluters have somehow changed the debate to does global warming exist when the real issue is that we need to reduce air pollution for the health of our children. Can any of you global warming deniers tell me that air pollution is good?
Reply-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
70%
Klarissa6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
stevie - no one on here has said that pollution, etc is a good thing.
Reply
What is important is that investigation is on-going. To shut off new findings is not the scientific way to discover what is causing the current heating.
Actually, this month, along the western US coast the weather has been considerably cooler and wetter than normal. -
-
-
100%
UnusualSuspect6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, that's a good sign...
Reply
If the air is cleaner now, we owe it all to the Democrats, for they're the ones who've been pushing for tighter environmental controls...
So, in 2012...vote Democratic, if you want to continue breathing cleaner air...
-
-
80%
Endoscopy6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you think that what we have now is bad you should have lived in LA in the 70's. Driving out of LA going to Edwards AFB you broke through the smog layer and could see the brown stuff behind you. On bad days you could look at the mountains and see the smog coming down the mountain side.
Reply
Things have been cleaned up a lot. And still the liberals rant how bad it is.-
100%
StevieGee6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Things have cleaned up a lot. You can thank an environmentalist for that. I did live in LA in the 70's. You cons were fighting environmental legislation then too. Crying about the added costs of catalytic converters on cars and unleaded gas.
Reply-
0%
beavith16 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
cons?
Reply
is that your code for the car companies?
LOL!
they could have done converters in the 1960s but there was no restriction on the lead and phosphorus in the gasoline. it took the (heh) republican congress of the early 1970s to mandate changes to gasline before converters would be practical.
how's LA now? Houston? Denver?
these are have geographic problems with masses of people living in the area. thanking an environmentalist has got nothing to do with those areas non-attainment status.
in the late 1960s, everyone was an environmentalist. it was pretty bad when rivers were on fire.
but good for you. it realy takes talent to weasel politics into every aspect of an issue.-
Neutral
StevieGee6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Beavith, there was no Republican controlled Congress of either house throughout the entire decade of the 70's. The Clean Air act was authored by Sen. Edmund Muskie, a Democrat from Maine, in 1970. The Clean Water Act was Vetoed by President Nixon. The veto was overridden in 1972.
Reply
You need to quit making stuff up.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
42%
mesodude6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Getting back to the title of the article, "these mad men" in my view, are easily duped (or supremely duplicitous) neocon thugs who are willing to take at face value the idea that this debate has anything whatsoever to do with science. Cons have a reputation the world over for being obsessed money and tax cut wh*res who will roll around in filth to protect profit and commerce. So I always LMAO at these ridiculous "scientific" stories that cons squeeze out every other month or so. Bottom line, cons--we know your history. We know you'd crap all over the planet with wild abandon if there was no one around to keep you filthy weasels in check. We know what each and every one of you are up to and we know what you're all about. ;-0
Reply-
77%
Klarissa6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
meso Your technically correct comment included the following scientific technology words: neocon; thugs;cons;obsessed;filthy crap;wild abandon' filthy weasels".
Reply
So I guess you have proved that Al Gore really knew what he was talking about when he said we had to buy carbon credits from companies that he owns or is invested in?-
60%
mesodude6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"So I guess you have proved that Al Gore really knew what he was talking about when he said we had to buy carbon credits from companies that he owns or is invested in?"
Reply
--No less than you've proven that ACORN is responsible for "massive voter fraud", Klarrissa. ;-P
-
-
sonofreasonComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
-
-
Grumpy63528Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
-
80%
truthiness6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't know where those numbers above are coming from, but no credible scientist believes humans are the cause of climate change. that is ludicrous. Al Gore is the spokesman for the IPCC position that nature's normal cycle of climate change is being adversely affected by human industrial pollution which is the position being debated by the scientists in this article.
Reply
debating that point is not crazy.. debate is good, it forces us to further investigate our own POV (generically speaking) and even occasionally helps us find mistakes in our argument and correct them. What with being human and prone to error.
the earth cycles through climate changes.. or did you think humans were responsible for the ice ages that occured before we existed?
now, we have increased our population by billions and built millions of cities and generated, I don't know how much, heat and changed the form of trillions of particles of carbon and other substances from solid to gas all in few hundred years.... does it really seem logical that would have no affect on our environment?-
100%
simonsez6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
plants need and use incredible amounts of CO2.
Reply
Scientists at CU are examining the quantities of CO2 required by plant life and among other things have discovered that a corn field absorbs enormous amounts of CO2 to complete their growing season.-
100%
truthiness6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
allowing for the fact we don't have the numbers yet, do you logically believe one cornfield equals one city, or that that are enough cornfields to balance the number of cities?
Reply
the reason I bring up cities in particular:
when I lived in Phoenix, I went outside one night at midnight and the thermometer read 99 degrees. granted this is an extreme example, but this sort of heat generation/ retention is going on in every city, everywhere in the world due to both sun created heat and our power generation. all of our power of course, creates CO2 and other pollutants, not to mention the heat itself. so, logically, don't you think this has to have some effect on the environment?-
Grumpy63528Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned7 Replies
-
sonofreasonComment removed: Hard Banned7 Replies
-
Neutral
simonsez6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There is far far more rural areas (with vegetation) than urban areas. When you fly, you see how much land there is.
Reply
We have over 100 million acres in corn. Probably the same number in wheat. We have over 10 billion trees in Georgia alone.
-
-
Grumpy63528Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
-
-
-
teeballComment removed: Hard Banned
-
Grumpy63528Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
86%
rhyannon386 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
More carbon gases and carcinogens are released by forrest fires or when a volcano erupts,than all the cars,trucks, planes and factories-ever.And the "greenhouse effect" is caused by water vapor not CO2. 99% of the atmosphere is nitrogen & oxygen and CO2 is only a fraction of the other 1%.Lastly,air cannot heat up by itself,it is heated by the sun(something never mentioned).The sun is hot(duhuh).This is not rocket science.
Reply -
Grumpy63528Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned3 Replies
-
60%
Icantwait6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My Fellow Americans: I'll make this brief. Where are all the Darwinians with the Evolution Theories? I thought Earth was just evolving. I wouldn't worry too much about any Global Warming at this point because if it does exist, although it doesn't, we won't be around to enjoy it. However, real soon we may see some serious Global Warming if the Taliban gets their hands on the Pakistani Nuclear Weapons. Good Point, learn to predict the weather and then tell us about Global Warming and how much Tax Money will be required to Halt it in its Tracks. The Real American
Reply-
Grumpy63528Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
-
Grumpy63528Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
Grumpy63528Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
-
-
Grumpy63528Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
-
0%
ronsjigslures6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What i don,t understand is the dought that its happening. Everyone that has lived on this planet has seen with there own eyes the distruction the human race has done to the planet, from contaminated water, to the acid in the air, and lose of thousands of miles of complete dead zones in the bays. Does people really site there so blind and say WE DIDN<T DO IT when its right there in frount of everyones every day living conditions. Can you safly drink the water in your city? 300 yrs ago according to the Indian ledions rivers and creeks were so clear and teaming with life that the water was used right from them with no harm, many American Indians didn,t pass away untile there 90,s and 100,s. Even Colubuses OWN scribe wrote in the jounnal about this and that the fish were so bundant that you could almost walk on there backs accross the river. The original writings are in Museiums to read and see the pictures. The prooof is all around that human impact changed the air and water since it is all connected, to the mess we have today. Take off the blinders and step up to the plate and admit that we are the worst poluters of America of all the races that have lived here for the past 50,000 to 80,000 yrs.
Reply -
-
20%
meaikido6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You all are idiots, if global warming was real then it would produce more rain then ever before. If global warming is real then the Middle East should get enough rain to grow trees and plants. What goes up, must come down. In Florida summer it get hot, the water evaporates, and then we have storms with RAIN!
Reply
Global Warming is about money for carbin tax, this is why they keep pushing this idea!-
100%
CRYMTYPHON6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, there you have it.
Reply
Thousands of scientists putting together observations that check each other's experiments and conclusions,
- and they are now officialy 'just idiots'.
It was all really about 'carbin tax'.
Meaikido, please report to Geneva to pick up your Nobel prize.
Won't those scientists be jealous !
-
-
100%
frctm56 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is funny stuff. You click on the links to these "scientist" and they're debunked. Industrial chemists are climate experts! Economists are climate experts! Electrical Engineers are climate experts! Geologists are climate experts! Energy advocates for the Heritage group are climate experts! I guess you conservatives will visit your dermatologist for brain surgery as long as he gives you good news!
Reply -
100%
djn3nunez36 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA-These are but a few of the many scientists that have fallen into the skeptic ranks concerning global warming. Do any of these people appear as if they don’t know what they’re talking about? We must maintain that we would trust these scientists views over those of Al Gore, even if he did invent the internet.
Reply
Why trust a site that uses this often repeated mendacious lie about Al Gore inventing the internet.
Gore never claimed that he "invented" the Internet, which implies that he engineered the technology. The invention occurred in the seventies and allowed scientists in the Defense Department to communicate with each other. In a March 1999 interview with Wolf Blitzer, Gore said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Taken in context, the sentence, despite some initial ambiguity, means that as a congressman Gore promoted the system we enjoy today, not that he could patent the science, though that's how the quotation has been manipulated. Hence the disingenuous substitution of "inventing" for the actual language.
But the real question is what, if anything, did Gore actually do to create the modern Internet? According to Vincent Cerf, a senior vice president with MCI Worldcom who's been called the Father of the Internet, "The Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier role as Senator."
http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/internet.htm-
Neutral
joeblowe6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah - that "Al Gore invented the internet" is a stupid joke. He never claimed any such thing (except in later years as a joke) but DID support the PROJECT that created the internet. And, must as his SUPPORT of the PROJECT that created the internet FAILED to make him a scientist, so did winning the Nobel for his idiotic (and frequently misleading if not completely WRONG) little slide show movie. Please refer to www.petitionproject.org to see the list of over 30,000 REAL scientists (including over 9000 PhDs) that DISAGREE with Big Al and the IPCC.
Reply-
-
Neutral
joeblowe6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah - the actual form that gets filled out DOES have personal information for verification purposes. That part gets omitted prior to posting. Check the web site, look at the qualifications section. That will help you NOT make idiotic comments in the future. (Just trying to help.... {;>D)=)
Reply-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanks for the help!
Reply
But of course people have to fill out their name and address for the form.
And of course I put my name and address on it.
I don't see why it is omitted prior to posting;
- there is no reason for it to be real.
I put No 3, Bag End, The Shire for my address.
But I wanted an impressive zip code for a scientist.
Maybe princeton or something.-
Neutral
joeblowe6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Let us know if any of your phony submits get posted. It would be fun to bust those guys on their claim of vetting submissions. I would GUESS, that since they seem to be pretty sharp that you would have to do a LOT better job of faking a submission than that. Sure, you can submit your DOG for a FOID here in Illinois and VIOLA! next thing you know your mutt can legally own a gun, but I don't think these are corrupt (and lazy) civil servants. Guess we'll see.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
CRYMTYPHON6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Waterboarding is good for getting people to confess.
Reply
It makes them say whatever the torturer wants to hear,
- even if it is a lie.
It is as poor a way to get the truth,
as is listening to talk radio,
or quoting the latest Petroleum Family Eagle Foundation paper on glacier growth.
Also, Al Gore is an ex-soldier who is much bigger than you and would simple
grab your head and hold you down while he explained the diference between
demanding proof of the proof, and actualy debating a subject.
Then he would probably sit on you a while and explain how
Global Climate Change is a science theory, and doesn't give a rip about politics.
It is true or not whether you are conservative or liberal.
Then he might hold you upside down and swing you back and forth to show
how climate temperatures can alter rapidly.
- heck this is getting better and better go for it Automan999 and send pictures plz!
-
-
0%
davidl70826 months, 2 weeks ago
-
100%
CRYMTYPHON6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Much more pollution is produced making the batteries for electric vehicles" - than what?
Reply
Your statement is like the ads that say "20% less sugar".
But less than what?
I did like the color references; greenies and a black sheep.
It would have been better if you had said 'green sheep following a black sheep',
- but that might have clued people in you were hallucinating.
I'd give it a B - . Good try!
-
-
Neutral
joeblowe6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I refer everyone to: www.petetionproject.org for more information on this subject than you possibly care to know. This is a project set up by SCIENTISTS at the University of Oregon who DO NOT take a single dime from oil companies, NOR is government money involved in this project. To summarize the findings: Humans ARE adding a SMALL amount to global warming. HOWEVER! It turns out not to be a bad thing. In fact, in some ways it's a GOOD thing. BUT! The effects of anthropogenic global warming are found to be very, very small, and not anywhere near sufficient to cause the type of panic being urged by those who would PROFIT from a cap and trade type agreement.
Reply
Please, go and actually READ this RESEARCH - that's right, it's actual, peer- reviewed RESEARCH (which, by the way, the IPCC report is NOT) and see what REAL scientists have to say. It may impress you to note that the signature of Edward Teller on the petition form on the front page of the site is REAL - he signed this before he died. There are over 30,000 signatures on this petition, including over 9000 PhDs. The actual FACT is that the MAJORITY of scientist in the U.S. do NOT agree with the IPCC.-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What a great site!
Reply
I heard about it years ago,
but mostly from people who thought the viking kitties were funny.
I filled out the form!
How long before my name shows up on the list?
I put myself in as Professor Crymtyphon Gest ,
with a Ph.D in Atmospherics .
I think I spelled that right. Atmosferics?
In the box for 'specialized scientific experience:';
I put down global primate change which I think will
interest them.
It didn't ask from what institution I got the degree,
which is a pity 'cause I always wanted to go to Harvard.
I think I will do another,
as Herr Professor Emeritus Crymtyphon.
I can do a great German accent if they call me;
- but I don't suppose they will.
Thanx Joeblow!-
Neutral
joeblowe6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Real funny - do you notice any of those fake names showing up? They CLAIM that they vet submissions. If they don't please indicate which of your fake submits has been posted up as legit as I'd like to know that they are lying. And - as a further exercise for you - did you actually READ the research material? And if so, did you UNDERSTAND it? Do you actually HAVE a science degree or background? Have you ever been in a lab and actually collected evidence? Analyzed it? Figured out what it MEANS? I would ask that you NOT drink the IPCC kool-aid until you DO understand the subject.
Reply-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hi Joe!
Reply
Great questions.
SImple answer;
I am not a scientist, and do not play one on tv .
So I bow to the experts; if they have reached a majority conclusion
- I assume it is the proper scientific point of view.
Especialy if it is a significant majority.
Your site is a fraud.
Anybody can log in and claim to be whoever they want.
Anybody can put up a paper or pseudo-treatise.
But if you go to the accredited scientists and ask them, poll after poll has found a strong majority agreeing with the basic statement of Global Climate Change.
There are almost no significant scientific communitiees or organizations
that have not publicly issued support for the IPCC findings.
Only quacks, brave rebels and lobbyists, podiatrists with degrees in Creation
Biology from Bob Jones and the Discovery Institute. -
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The following non-partisan, non-lobbyist, scientific associations have issued their belief that people are altering the climate:
Reply
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
The World Meteorological Organization
The United Nations Environmental Programme
The US National Academy of Sciences
The American Meteorological Society
The American Geophysical Union
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
The European Academy of Sciences and Arts
The International Council of Academies of Engineering and technological Sciences
The National Research Council (US)
The American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
The American Society for Microbiology
The Society of American Foresters
The American Geophysical Union
The European Federation of Geologists
The European Geosciences Union
The Geological Society of America
The World Federation of Public Health Associations
The American Meteorological Society
The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
The Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
The Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
The Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
The World Meteorological Organization
The American Institute of Physics
The Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
And lets end with the American Association of State Climatologists
No, lets end with the American Association of Petroleum Geologists
No, let's end with The American Institute of Professional Geologists-
Neutral
joeblowe6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
9000 + PhDs in related fields with several thousand OTHER scientists who (somewhat) disagree. That much is FOR SURE. They have INDIVIDUALLY signed a petition to state that. I am VERY skeptical of any "association" that claims to support the IPCC - I strongly suspect a political (or financial - either directly or indirectly) motive.
Reply
And, there's this: even the position of those who HAVE signed the peition is not that humans cause NO atmospheric warming. They only put forth the findings that A) it's really not that MUCH - practically if not actually insignificant compared to other factors - and B) the big bugaboo for the IPCC (CO2 emissions) are NOWHERE NEAR as harmful as the IPCC claims. In fact, as their data indicates, a little more CO2 in the atmosphere MAY end up doing more good than harm.
In short, the IPCC and the politicians that manage that bunch, are - as is usual for politicians - trying to make it into a "crisis" so they can get what they want more easily. And - you ask - what is it that they WANT? Easy - MONEY.! TAX MONEY! They want an excuse to raise YOUR taxes (and mine) by round-about goofy crap like "cap and trade." Make no mistake - it's ALL about the money. You know the rule: FOLLOW THE MONEY! No one signing that petition stands to make dollar one from having done so. And these days, even a number of IPCC scientists are regaining their sense and backpedaling away from the "official" IPCC position.
Just wait a couple more years - I predict that it will eventually be "discovered" that the planet has been COOLING the last 2 or 3 years. Early evidence tends to show that very thing. And I further predict that the IPCC will try to explain that away somehow to keep those dollars coming in. (You will notice it has ALREADY shifted from "global warming" to "climate change" - why do you suppose that is?)
-
-
-
-
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.